bryanlautt Posted October 2, 2006 CID Share Posted October 2, 2006 Was running 1.2 untill the end Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iced98lx Posted October 2, 2006 CID Share Posted October 2, 2006 I didn't know i was allowed to run off microsofts servers.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostmaster Posted October 2, 2006 CID Share Posted October 2, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bryanlautt Posted October 2, 2006 CID Share Posted October 2, 2006 Wow if only i could obtain that kind of a speed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommie gorman Posted October 2, 2006 CID Share Posted October 2, 2006 Now I know you did not do that on your home sat ghostmaster, no way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostmaster Posted October 2, 2006 CID Share Posted October 2, 2006 Nope, did it at work.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanBuren Posted October 2, 2006 CID Share Posted October 2, 2006 a bit faster today dont think it will go much faster then this on this route 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 3 ms <1 ms <1 ms ua-85-226-177-2.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se [85.226 .177.2] 3 4 ms <1 ms <1 ms vlan2.dr2.lul10.se.bredband.com [195.54.119.238] 4 1 ms <1 ms 1 ms port-channel3.dr1.lul1.se.bredband.com [195.54.1 19.233] 5 8 ms 1 ms 1 ms ge1-0.cr1.lul1.se.bredband.com [195.54.115.225] 6 24 ms 20 ms 20 ms pos4-0.cr2.svl1.se.bredband.com [195.54.124.26] 7 23 ms 21 ms 20 ms pos5-0.cr1.svl1.se.bredband.com [195.54.123.97] 8 21 ms 20 ms 20 ms pos6-0-0.cr2.sto1.se.bredband.com [195.54.123.18 1] 9 144 ms 38 ms 176 ms pos13-0.cr1.sto2.se.bredband.com [195.54.123.122 ] 10 21 ms 20 ms 20 ms pos1-0.br1.sto2.se.bredband.com [195.54.117.14] 11 21 ms 21 ms 21 ms s-b3-pos6-1.telia.net [213.248.101.49] 12 21 ms 22 ms 21 ms s-bb1-link.telia.net [80.91.249.89] 13 32 ms 32 ms 32 ms kbn-bb1-link.telia.net [213.248.65.142] 14 137 ms 151 ms 151 ms nyk-bb1-pos0-1-0.telia.net [213.248.64.22] 15 153 ms 134 ms 151 ms chi-bb1-pos6-0-0-0.telia.net [213.248.80.153] 16 152 ms 151 ms 151 ms so0-2-0-250.j2.ord.scnet.net [64.202.110.69] 17 153 ms 151 ms 151 ms unknown.scnet.net [216.246.50.2] 18 155 ms 151 ms 152 ms cachefly.equinix.chicago1.cachepop.net [66.225.2 40.37] Trace complete. VanBuren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted October 2, 2006 CID Share Posted October 2, 2006 dont know why but i get pertty bad speeds from this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunted 2 Posted October 3, 2006 CID Share Posted October 3, 2006 this host is very slow if you ask me cause my ping and route is great but i get horrible speeds. C:Documents and SettingsEebobb>tracert cachefly.com Tracing route to cachefly.com [66.225.240.37] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms 10.50.192.1 2 8 ms 7 ms 7 ms dstswr1-vlan2.rh.lybrny.cv.net [167.206.33.33] 3 7 ms 6 ms 5 ms r3-ge9-2.mhe.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.33.1] 4 8 ms 5 ms 5 ms r1-srp0-0.wan.hcvlny.cv.net [65.19.104.193] 5 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms r2-srp5-0.in.nycmnyzr.cv.net [65.19.96.56] 6 33 ms 33 ms 33 ms 65.19.102.134 7 28 ms 29 ms 28 ms ge0-0-1.j2.ord.scnet.net [206.223.119.57] 8 31 ms 29 ms 44 ms ae1-4000m.c2.ord.scnet.net [64.202.110.66] 9 34 ms 35 ms 35 ms ae2-4000m.c1.ord.scnet.net [205.234.205.217] 10 28 ms 30 ms 29 ms cachefly.equinix.chicago1.cachepop.net [66.225.2 40.37] Trace complete. C:Documents and SettingsEebobb>ping cachefly.com -t Pinging cachefly.com [66.225.240.37] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=55 Reply from 66.225.240.37: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=55 Ping statistics for 66.225.240.37: Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 28ms, Maximum = 33ms, Average = 29ms Control-C ^C C:Documents and SettingsEebobb> all of this is BS if you ask me cause they are really slow compared to testmy.net and claim to be faster than this host which they are not cause i am proof and have tests to prove it. The networks chosen all have multi-gigabit connectivity, a great reputation and strong SLA's. But how do they stack up on latency, the bottleneck in real-world tcp performance? The provider with the lowest latency is highlighted for each city on Level3's Network City CacheFly RackSpace HostWay The Planet Interland Atlanta, GA 12ms 32ms 20ms 20ms 28ms Baltimore, MD 1ms 52ms 20ms 36ms 20ms Boston, MA 8ms 56ms 20ms 40ms 24ms Chicago, IL 1ms 36ms 12ms 36ms 28ms Cincinnati, OH 4ms 36ms 12ms 40ms 36ms Cleveland, OH 8ms 44ms 16ms 40ms 20ms Charlotte, NC 16ms 36ms 24ms 24ms 32ms Dallas, TX 32ms 4ms 36ms 1ms 32ms Denver, CO 24ms 20ms 24ms 16ms 44ms Detroit, MI 4ms 40ms 4ms 44ms 36ms FIX-West NAP San Jose 1ms 60ms 56ms 44ms 76ms Garden City, NY 8ms 56ms 20ms 36ms 16ms Houston, TX 36ms 12ms 40ms 20ms 40ms Los Angeles, CA 12ms 48ms 68ms 32ms 68ms Las Vegas, NV 16ms 52ms 44ms 32ms 78ms Miami, FL 28ms 44ms 32ms 32ms 40ms Newark, NJ 4ms 52ms 20ms 36ms 20ms New York, NY 4ms 52ms 20ms 36ms 20ms Oakland, CA 1ms 64ms 60ms 44ms 76ms Orlando, FL 24ms 56ms 28ms 28ms 36ms Philadelphia, PA 4ms 52ms 24ms 36ms 20ms Phoenix, AZ 20ms 48ms 60ms 24ms 64ms Raleigh, NC 4ms 56ms 20ms 36ms 20ms Richmond, VA 8ms 56ms 20ms 36ms 16ms Sacramento, CA 4ms 60ms 64ms 44ms 80ms San Antonio, TX 40ms 16ms 48ms 8ms 40ms San Diego, CA 12ms 48ms 64ms 28ms 68ms Seattle, WA 20ms 64ms 48ms 40ms 72ms San Francisco, CA 1ms 60ms 56ms 44ms 76ms San Jose, CA 1ms 60ms 64ms 44ms 76ms Salt Lake City, UT 24ms 52ms 36ms 24ms 56ms Saint Louis, MO 4ms 32ms 4ms 32ms 32ms Stamford, CT 4ms 52ms 24ms 36ms 20ms Tampa, FL 32ms 40ms 36ms 24ms 48ms Tustin, CA 12ms 48ms 72ms 32ms 68ms Washington, DC 1ms 52ms 40ms 32ms 16ms Weehawken, NJ 4ms 52ms 24ms 40ms 20ms CacheFly RackSpace HostWay The Planet Interland Average Latency 12.19ms 47.22ms 35.55ms 33.25ms 43.33ms The numbers speak for themselves - CacheFly outperformed the competition: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted October 3, 2006 CID Share Posted October 3, 2006 Blunted 2 that stuff on there website is complete BS. I know for a fact rackspace is faster then 44ms to Miami, its more like 12ms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunted 2 Posted October 3, 2006 CID Share Posted October 3, 2006 i know man :haha: another thing is i got about 1 MB/s last night and now its only 237 Kb/s so yea its really fast alright LOL. garbage is what it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanBuren Posted October 12, 2006 CID Share Posted October 12, 2006 VanBuren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just- Posted October 12, 2006 CID Share Posted October 12, 2006 now that kick ass Van and glad to see u back beeb a while Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted October 12, 2006 CID Share Posted October 12, 2006 nice van you got faster then my dedicated server Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommie gorman Posted October 13, 2006 CID Share Posted October 13, 2006 That connection is always so sweet. Nice job Van. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snmp_rape Posted October 13, 2006 CID Share Posted October 13, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just- Posted October 13, 2006 CID Share Posted October 13, 2006 hi snmp_rape and welcome to the forum i see u are using some sort of download accelerator what is ur isp and what is ur adverstised speed ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snmp_rape Posted October 13, 2006 CID Share Posted October 13, 2006 thank you for the welcome. my isp is charter. and my speed is unlimited. well at least limited to hardware and overhead. i was using dap. my ping to that link was kinda high. so the only way to get any good speed was to use multi-thread. while ive got the attention of an admin, everytime i try to use my speed test image on another forum i only get a link. ive tried all three types of code? they only support BBcode. is there away around this? thanx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted October 14, 2006 CID Share Posted October 14, 2006 welcome to the forum snmp_rape nice speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visionary Posted October 16, 2006 CID Share Posted October 16, 2006 From doing the optonline speed test these are my results... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwt1966 Posted October 16, 2006 CID Share Posted October 16, 2006 Download Speed: 5599 kbps (699.9 KB/sec transfer rate) Upload Speed: 852 kbps (106.5 KB/sec transfer rate) beats the crap out of me {adelphia} 6 meg.I thought I was doing good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommie gorman Posted October 16, 2006 CID Share Posted October 16, 2006 As far as I can tell that is doing good there dwt1966 on a 100MB file test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theelviscerator Posted October 17, 2006 CID Share Posted October 17, 2006 err 82 sec to dl 100 mb... starts around 3 ended around 1.5 mb/sec Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommie gorman Posted October 17, 2006 CID Share Posted October 17, 2006 Well I guess since I waited so long, at least look a a sat slow poke. The only thing I don't get is it actually D/L'd @ 123kbps. Why does it always show a different speed when done. Just curious. Now catch that dial-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
php Posted October 17, 2006 CID Share Posted October 17, 2006 The end speed is the overall average... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.